Fear and loathing of people with mental illness in Feminists’ reading of Shulamith Firestone’s Airless Spaces: an unauthorized biography

Before I explain who I am and what right do I have to be writing an “un-authorized” biography of Shulamith Firestone (SF), consider the following paragraph (and the two badges to the right of this post):

SF “plunged out of history” sometime between the late 70s and early 1980s due to mental illness, which was probably caused by her long ideological fights with feminists, only to come back in the last 10 years of her life to write her second and last book, Airless Spaces. This is a “scary” book “not about feminism or politics but about her experience with schizophrenia.” It “seems designed explicitly to discourage sympathy” for people with mental illness, for it “makes us feel wary of forcing these short, terse, anti-pitying vignettes of illness and hospitalization into political or personal symbolism”. Airless Spaces is by no means an intimidating work”. She died of ‘complications’ with mental illness.

[All quotes above from Shulamith Firestone’s Airless Spaces by Sianne Ngai. All quotes on this post will come from that article, the focus of my discussion about feminists reading of Airless Spaces because it’s the one I found to be the most offensive.]

A not so ‘beautiful mind’: feminists angry at their ‘fallen icon’

That is how current and future bios about SF will end if her last 20 years of life continue to be ignored or covered up, reduced by some intellectual feminists to two or three unsympathetic sentences about her mental illness. You see, the lives of highly intelligent men with mental illness (mi) can be made inspirational, as in the movie A Beautiful Mind, their work saved from the ‘stain of mi.’ and actually presented as its magical product. Women’s, their mind and work are professionally ‘deconstructed‘ (as in butchered) by the ‘razor-sharp’ feminist critique, then presented to you as unappealing, irrational, devoid of inspirational qualities to others: in other words, without the tiniest smidgen of saving grace.

I can see where this ‘feminists anger’ at Firestone comes from. They imagine their icon, the fiery SF who challenged the male oligarchy at age 25, been passively carted out to a psych ward and involuntarily been pumped with psych meds.

In “Hospital” the characters are all dosed with medication, can’t sleep, gain weight,”

Not a salutary image to celebrate, is it?

It is as if they feel shamed and betrayed by her:

Nothing—not gender, class, race, or sexuality; nor shared or common oppressions based on these categories of social difference—defines the people in Airless Spaces more than the hospital does.”

How dare Firestone expose her ‘weakness’, and in a non-feminist book to boot.

Except that it is an illusion, not a reflection of reality. That image, represented in Mrs. Ngai’s reading of Airless Spaces (AS), is the artful construct of the ‘fear and loathing of people with mental illness we all carry hidden in the depths of our mind, using all the stereotypes and prejudices it has filed away for years in our mind’s rotary file cabinet.  You (general you)  didn’t get that image from reading AS; it has been there in your mind long before you read it. You just stuck SF’s ‘ugly photo’ in it and called it “SF’s plunge out of history“.

Airless Spaces: the object of Feminists’ scorn

The paratexts of Airless Spaces are hardly inviting: unhappy title, hospital-blue cover with dull, barely-distinguishable beige print, and large, anxious, unhappy-looking close-up of Firestone on the back cover.  “

https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1347425556l/667855.jpg

Todus criminalis, She just could find absolutely nothing positive to say about the book or author: bad from front to back cover and everything in between.

A feminist attack on an ill ‘sister’ can hardly get any more vicious and callous than that: Mrs. Ngai wrote that ‘lovely’ opinion in the belief that SF was alive, which means that she must have considered the possibility that Firestone would find her article and read it. It seems as if she intended to shame her publicly for becoming mentally ill and for daring to write about it. It’s the old story: people with mental illness can’t expect compassion from a normal and rational society, especially if you are a woman.

Mrs. Ngai expressions in her judgment on AS and Firestone through out her post is precisely what Firestone is depicting in AS: the destructive impact of social fear and loathing of people with mental illness on the dignity of a human being. I can see just about every ill feeling and stereotype about people with mental illness in Mrs. Ngai’s “paratext”. Here are some:

That the problems of psychiatric patients and mentally ill people in general are not worthy of our attention (“hardly inviting”) and not worth reading about their life, not even if that patient is the (former?) feminist icon herself. “But not depression about feminism or politics.”

All of them are “unhappy people” 24/7 by nature of the illness (not maybe because the hospital staff walks all over their civil rights and dignity 24/7),

Psychiatric hospitals are disgusting (“hospital-blue”) because it houses ‘irrational people’, not because of what happens to them in there.

And the mother of all covert expression of fear and loathing of people with mental illness laid down in digital ink by a feminist:

anxious, unhappy-looking close-up of Firestone.”

Mrs. Ngai might as well have quoted Firestone directly from AS:

she looked like an escapee from a loony bin”. [The jump suit}

The real ‘paratext’ in “she looks anxious and unhappy“ (a purely emotional assesment), based on Mrs. Ngai attitude displayed in her post, is ‘she looks like a crazy woman and I’m afraid of her, I don’t wanna look at her’.

t’s not just the content of the stories in Airless Spaces, or their sense of simultaneous pastlessness and futurelessness that I find depressing.”

Is there a difference?

But one can’t blame only the intellectual feminists, young and old, for uncritically petrifying in history SF the human being as a the feminist icon whose only legacy is that at age 25 she wrote in the 70s the ultimate feminist theory book, Dialectic of Sex (DOS), and initiated the 2nd wave of feminism, while dismissing her last 20 years of life as barren of any intellectual or humane worth. There are also political forces concealed in plain view feeding that attitude.

One of the most effective weapons in the arsenal of the powers that be are those which can be deployed hidden in plain view; it explains the military obsession with ‘stealthiness’, e.g. stealth war planes and ‘invisible soldiers’. Fear and loathing of the mi is one of those weapons, just as the war on feminism has been a stealthy one all along too, masked  as ‘culture’. One could  argue that it has been so effective against feminism as to finally getting feminists to self-destroy, for there is no “explicit” difference between the religious fanatic misogynist’s attacks on SF and her work, and the attacks some  feminists are now perpetrating on her on account of her mental illness. The outcome is the same:  discrediting a feminist and her feminist ideas as mental illness, and slowly  caving in the movement by autophagia. DOS is not evidence of her ‘early’ mental illness, and AS is not the crazy rantings of a mentally ill former feminist icon.

When feminists with mental illness have the courage of raising the topic of mental illness they risk public shame and ridicule from both the misogynists and the intellectual feminists in their small intra-self-bashing circle, as is happening to SF.

I sometimes wonder if these feminists share also the same goals with the misogynists, because for the life of me I still can’t see how the feminists’s cause can be advanced by openly setting out to viciously demolishing their own ‘icon’ as a ‘pathetic mentally ill woman’. It makes me imagine that Mrs. Ngai has a photo of Donald Trump on her desk; I don’t know.

THIS POST IS ALL ABOUT YOU, NOT HER

So to finally answer the question above, I’m, as in Bob Dylan’s lyrics, the “complete unknown” woman/case manager to who Firestone dedicated her last book, Airless Spaces (AS). That fact alone allows me to talk with ‘some authority’ about the last 10-20 years of her life. But if you don’t buy that, I can talk about her thanks to my right of freedom of speech, the same one that allows some intellectual feminists to, um, how should I say it, trash her and AS

Bear in mind, though, that I’m not an intellectual, not in the elitist sense of the word – OK; I’m not an intellectual, of any kind. I’m sure that my basic level of ESL ‘gramar’ and poor composition skills tipped you off, didn’t it? Please, keep this in mind; I’m setting up a point for the ‘book dedication’ part.

In truth, this post is not a biography of any type about SF. If you want one, read AS (again), this time not as a female version of The Shining, but as her autobiography; I’m sure she wrote it with that in mind, including a chapter explaining how she thought her mental illness developed. But nooo, you can’t even see that in there because to you her life stopped to have any importance once you learned she had become mentally ill:

the book particularly discourages us from reading it as the story of Firestone, the Feminist.”

In fact, I’m writing this post in part because I dread imagining the type of bio the anti-feminists intellectual feminists will be writing about her life.

I’m not writing this post as a bio of Firestone because. not only I don’t have the intellectual skills  necessary for that, but also because I was not the only person involved in facilitating her temporary recovery, though I will be using some of my experience with her to make some points on the second part of this post.

So why am I writing this now, twenty years after the facts?

First, I recently noticed (online) an interest in the life and writing of Firestone, prompted undoubtedly, among other reasons, by the current national and global political conditions. As it turns out, Firestone’s political ideas are far from dated (she’s still dangerous). Second, I have also been reading online with profound consternation an implied judgment from some feminists that her last 20 years of life have no value to society, not worthy of being recorded and studied with impartiality as her earliest feminist material because, as the prejudice goes, people with mental illness can produce nothing of value for society: they are merely a scary burden to it; and that AS is neither a feminist nor a political book but a mere collection of “scary” (take notes, Stephen King) and depressing fictionalized stories about her experience with schizophrenia.

To change that type of prejudice and save Firestone’s whole life legacy, the facts of those 20 years of her life must be made public by those who have them. I recognize that Mrs.Ngai makes the point that she could find no information about Firestone’s life post DOS and that “How the narrator or characters became hospitalized to begin with, is a question Airless Spaces never asks us to ask,” (I don’t see why she couldn’t ask the question out of her own curiosity; well, I know the answer.)

“My surprise encounter with her name on the spine of Airless Spaces made me acutely aware of my ignorance.  What exactly happened, in the interval between 1970 and 1998, to Shulamith Firestone? “

That’s why the facts of those years must be made public: not being available facilitate these uncompassionate analysis of her life. Facilitate, not eliminate: even with the facts these feminists will continue writing in the masculine style: totally emotionally detached from the humanity of their ‘objects’ and without an ounce of compassion for the suffering of women, particularly feminist women who are not engaged in useless discussions about feminist theories.

Who has those facts, then? Mainly her family, her friends in and around her support group, and I as the ICM (intensive case manager) of Visiting Nurse Services (VNS) who enrolled her in the program. And why haven’t these people written about this part of SF’s life yet? Again, due to my poor composition skills you will have to read the answer to this question in the second part. First, I will be discussing in this post my ‘informed’ (!) opinion about:

  1. The political reasons why SF’s last years are being dismissed by some feminist as of no value to their feminist imperative.
  2. That some intellectual feminists’ misreading of ‘AS’ as the irrational schizophrenic rantings of a ‘has been-feminist icon‘ is clearly not a matter of lack of literature skills, but betray unexamined attitudes of fear and loathing of people with mental illness.
  3. That to correct this sorry state of affair – the denigration of SF’s whole life and legacy by feminists because of her mental illness – the people who were with her need to tell their experience for the record. I have lost contact with them; my hope is that somehow they bump into this post and consider meeting as a group to tell the story of SF’s dignified struggle with m.i.

With all due respect to Susan Faludi, her compassionate article after Firestone’s passing, for which she interviewed all of us who were with her the last 10 years of her life, should not be the last words from us. We all refused to discuss with Mrs. Faludi details of Firestone’s illness. Maybe she should be the professional writer to put our collective experience in an article for reference to future writers of SF bio. By now, 20 years after the emotional shock of her passing, we should know how to tell her story and how is her life inspirational without getting into lurid details of symptoms and delusions.

THE ROOT OF FEAR AND LOATHING OF PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS

I said at the beginning of this post that one can’t blame the feminist intellectuals for dismissing SF last 20 years of life as the ‘useless’ years of SF the mentally ill.

The culprit for this sorry state of affairs is humanity’s perennial fear and prejudice about people with m.i. (By prejudice here I mean ignorance, but not in bookish sense; ignorance as in lack of understanding of how we contribute to the suffering of other human beings with our unexamined emotions, deeds -of speech and body – and beliefs.)

Those two are as potent today in this brand new millennium as they were two hundred years ago. They exist today, undisturbed and unquestioned, in the mind of most intellectuals, be it feminists or  intellectuals in every field of studies –men and women; in those themselves suffering the symptoms of mental illness and in the minds of their supportive friends and families; even in the minds of mental health practitioners and service providers.

Not even today’s ultra-modern science and psychiatry have been able to make a dent in our collective and personal fear and loathing of  the m.i. This is not only because they are intent on nourishing those traits for political and monetary gains, but because ingrained human fear and loathing of mentally ill people are impermeable to science in many people.

This fear and loathing is the outcome of plain fear and prejudice: the ineradicable hallmark of the human condition, across the political spectrum from extreme right to extreme left and everything in between, in men as in women. They are the emotion which, left unchecked, becomes a weapon against humanity. For example, fear and prejudice are the indispensable emotions which greedy men in power successfully manipulate with propaganda in order to convince the rest of a reluctant humanity to accept fighting against each other in these men’s wars for profit, since WWI (the war that ended all peace) up to our current ‘war on terrorism’.

What is the impact of these traits in our society?

It is common knowledge that these two traits, when unexamined or challenged, have negative ethical and moral consequences that affect us all at both the personal and social levels. As they relate to people with mental illness, social expressions of fear and prejudices about them (manipulated or not by the NRA, e.g.) are powerful psychological triggers of deep seated feelings of shame in the minds, not only of the victims of these expressions, but in their families and friends as well, which of course may lead to feelings of guilt for harboring those feelings.

Speaking of the NRA, we have seen how they use the media to manipulate public fear of the mentally ill to sell guns and to get political support to pass laws that blame the mentally ill for all mass murders committed with weapons –whether by people with m.i or not – so as to deflect any responsibility away from the CEOs of the arms manufacturing industry. Their propaganda is crystal clear: buy guns because mentally ill people are a fearful and dangerous bunch whom we must be legally free to kill in self-defense.

On the other hand, this fear and loathing can defeat the moral value to society of a healthy sense of shame and regret, which is to refrain from acting with cruelty and disregard to the well-being of others out of personal fear of being rejected by one’s peer.

There is no limit to the evil that can be inflicted on others when one lacks the ability to feel shame and regret for one’s own acts of cruelty, especially if it can be justified as necessary. We’ve seen this with American psychiatrists feeling proud of torturing mentally ill children in Willowbrook in the name of ‘science’, and politicians and ‘men of science’ (pharma, i.e.) bestowing awards on these psychiatrists for cruelty perpetrated on behalf of science. It was all done on account of social fear and prejudice of people with mental illness: the doctors, themselves morally numb to the atrocities they were committing, convinced the public for a long while that it was done to protect both the children and society, and as ‘research to cure the illness’.

The difference between the actions of these American doctors and those of Dr. Mengele and Hitler’s ‘final solution’ to the problem of mental illness -proudly and yet covertly gassing those poor souls out of ‘necessity’, to keep the white race pure – is really tiny: only the methods changed. The immoral arguments were the same, science to protect you from the mentally ill, i.e.

But is it still going on?

You bet your derriere it is.

Modern treatment of Dystonia

 

Evolution through time of western methods for treating mental illness. Not much has change, has it?

The only thing that has changed is the wording in the contract that the family of the mentally ill signs consenting to invasive ‘neuroscience’ research of the mind and mental illness on their child: it’s not the ice pick anymore; it’s more like GOD in a white coat in the lab with new millennium type of cutlery.

In its seemingly tamer form, we see today in the public ‘critique’ of some intellectual feminists the impact of unchecked free-wheeling shamelessness in justifying contempt for people with mental illness. For example, Mrs. Ngai can justify her own “inability to understand, relate or feel compassion for them not perhaps as a result of her own unexamined personal prejudices but as a natural and legitimate response to these people’s ‘irrational’ behaviors.

it compels a strangely anti-empathetic empathy, an empathy with its explicitly anti-empathetic affect.

Now that’s spinning. The idea that Firestone set out to write her story with the intention of making you feel “anti-empathic” and ’empathic’ at the same time is one that only a feminist who set out to analysis AS as The Shining could come up with. It is “strangely” indeed; it is irrational thinking on the part of Mrs. Ngai.

This shamelessness in blaming the victim of our prejudices in turn makes us callous and unsympathetic towards their plight in the hands of the state psychiatric system, accepting the state’s false justifications for the inhumane and barbaric treatment of people diagnosed as m.i we have seen through history, and even today. We then feel compelled to cover up their condition to hide our shame or, like in Nazi Germany, we look to other side when the atrocities are being committed.

And that’s how we have ended up today hiding SF’s last 20 years of life, the years of her courageous and dignified struggle with m.i. and the mental health system. Of that I am in part to be blamed. 

THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL’ : IS IT TRUE ANY LONGER?

If the personal is political – the feminists’ favorite slogan – then it should stand to logic that living with mental illness is political. After all, this particular illness is not like, let’s say, diabetes; e.g. no one is afraid of a diabetic who doesn’t take his meds, and no diabetic person gets their civil liberties routinely trampled by the government when they get ‘symptomatic’.

And for crying out loud, are young feminists unaware that throughout history women who refused to stay in the kitchen were punished by labeling them mentally ill, and then lobotomized in the mid-1900s?  Do yourselves a favor: if you haven’t done it yet, please, don’t read “scary” AS as entertainment, watch the 1982 movie “Frances”.  Chances are you will miss the in-your-face politics and feminism in it too, but at least you will lay off of Firestone.

 

Movie trivia: in ‘V for Vendetta’, the character ‘Valerie’ is an homage to Frances Farmer.

Feminists are concerned with the connection between politics and the personal, yet they have persistently failed to make that connection in their reading of AS. Firestone made the connection; it’s the raison d’être of Airless Spaces precisely because the relation between the state’s routine daily trampling of one’s personal liberty and dignity  is seldom as explicit as in life in a state’s psych ward. Same with the politics of women’s oppression, it is not ‘explicit’; it is cloaked as ‘culture’, at least in the USA.

Why are feminists failing to see a ‘feminist’s dignity’ in AS?

Alas, it’s not because of their unexamined prejudices towards people with mi; it must be because she failed to “explicitly” make the connection for them by, for instance, entitling the book ‘feminists and psychiatry’ or put the word ‘feminism in the book spine. It is as if for feminists intellectuals a woman’s suffering and abuse is of no importance if she is a mental patient, especially if that woman is a feminists who dared become mentally ill and write  a book about it.

I don’t consider it preposterous to read AS as Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground, with the added bonus of the author observing herself and reporting her own actions and thoughts.

There is no passive SF in AS. Read The jump suit again, this time not as a female version of The Shining, and consider using a writing style different from men’s. Mrs. Ngai only focus in her reading of AS was ‘did it help the feminist cause?’

“it could be argued that Airless Spaces shouldn’t be read as a tragic allegory of the stalling or historical foreclosure of the radical feminist project.”

She missed the human aspect of AS.

Next week I will continue with a discussion of how Shulamith Firestone’s life is inspirational.

Advertisements

‘What Happened’: On feminism and the coup against the people of the USA

I watched Rachel Maddow’s interview of Hillary Clinton last Tuesday who was promoting her new book, a ‘part 2’ in paperback of last year’s ‘What Happened’, with the same title. The part of the interview that caught my attention the most was Hillary’s discussion about Putin’s continued meddling in our national politics and his attacks on her during the 2016 elections, which she discusses extensively in her new book.

Hillary asked, and I’m paraphrasing, If Putin wanted to punish her for her supposedly ‘anti- Putin’ actions as Secretary of State by blocking her path to the presidency, and if he anticipated, before the elections, that her presidency would be an “obstacle” to whatever his political goals were at the time, why, then, after having succeeded in removing said ‘obstacle’, is he still persistently attacking our political system and influencing our national political discourse? After all, he got what he and his billionaire supporters wanted:  Donald Trump, overwhelmingly rejected by popular vote, in the presidency.

Mrs. Clinton suggested that Putin’s attacks on her were neither just personal nor solely directed at her. She said that Putin is “paranoid” about any mass movement near his borders seeking political reforms and democracy (e.g. the LGBTQ and women’s movements). I propose to you, as I’m doing since the primaries  on this blog, that it was precisely that irrational fear of democratic movements what had, not only Putin, but the rest of the US and global oligarchs in a state of panic during the US presidential elections.

The mantra used by the American ‘Marxists’ during the elections (discussed on this blog) that Hillary Clinton hated Russia and was, consequently, an obstacle to ‘peace with Russia’, was a propaganda ploy devised by Putin and handed to them to disseminate among Bernies (proved by emails from Russia to Manafort). Bernies  believed the ploy and went on to vilify Hillary in the eyes of progressives supporting her. Is not for nothing that Putin was head of the KGB; his propaganda skills worked so well with Bernies that they still believe the myth of Hillary ‘the witch’ and Trump the ‘pro peace and anti-globlalism’ candidate. Heck, they might want to re-elect him.

The famous and mysterious “voters’ anger” (for a long time the mainstream media denied understanding what they were ‘angry’ about) at the globalist oligarchs manifested in the US Democratic Party as a solid united front of people of color, women, workers, immigrants (legal and illegal), LGBTQ, Muslims and many other oppressed groups. They were all behind Hillary Clinton, even some who didn’t like her.  The oligarchs of the world, of Russia, the U.S.A, China, Europe…were not pleased with the vision of the future flashing in front of their mind’s eye from all these expressions of solidarity among their nations’ oppressed groups.

Seeing these voters in the US behind a woman, nay, a feminist woman, was an intolerable sight indeed for the ruling male oligarchs. That’s why, as Hillary mentioned in the interview, more money was spend attacking her (over $30 millions) than on any other candidate running for president ever.

Politics is politics and I will not claim that Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State were all ‘kosher’. But at the same time she did stand for the interests of women and  oppressed group here and internationally.  I’m sure you can see why the same oligarchs that supported her as Secretary of State were not going to support her candidacy for president. Those are two different jobs. Running for president on a platform giving women more power and workers better salaries is not the oligarchs’  idea of a ‘good president’.

Case in point: By now the American public is aware that Putin didn’t act alone, that he joined, coordinated and ultimately received help from many U.S. entities. Among them were, and still are, the GOP, the NRA, the mainstream media (NYT and WaPo included), the pseudo-Marxists and the alt-right media. (Recall the infamous photo of Putin seating with Green Party’s Jill Stein and GOP senators). What interests could link this disparate group of political agents, particularly the ultra anti-anything-that-smells-like-socialism GOP and the NRA, to Putin?

It was the perfect political storm.

Ask yourself, what is it that our billionaire (and recently crowned as trillionaires) oligarchs care for the most on this planet? What terrifies them and their paid GOP servants the most, to the point of giving them nightmares?

Answer: What they have, and losing it.

First, they care for, no, actually, their lives revolve around investing the least amount of money on their workers and other incidentally necessary human beings (salaries and health insurance) and reaping insane profits from them and the consumers. Secondly, they care immensely for their power: political-economic-and male. (Male power, power over women, i.e., is a universal goal of just about every male.)

The two things that TERRIFY them the most are the opposite of those things they care for the most. They fear losing their power over women and workers (though they are more terrified of powerful women),  which would make them lose their ability to crunch humanity and, consequently, stop them from deriving their hugely immorally acquired profits.

And thus we arrive at the answer to ‘What Happened?’.

There was, and still is, a global anger at the globalist oligarchs. In the USA, the working class as such has become increasingly powerless, as shown by them having lost their union organizing powers (due to labor leaders’ corruption, political attacks from the oligarchy, and the almost total disappearance of the leftist movement since, at least, the 1980s). Meanwhile, the so-called identity issues have become more prominent, particularly the women’s issues. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in 2016 automatically put feminism in the ballot, both because she is a woman and because she openly ran as a feminist.

Make no mistake about it: Feminism was in the ballot this past 2016 presidential elections. In my view, it was the most important issue, the defining issue in the elections and the least mentioned or examined after the elections. It is the one issue which the members of the exclusive club of male oligarchs, from Putin to Trump and every Wall Street and Silicon Valley CEO, and trillionaires like Jeff Bezos are still not prepare to accept: a woman, and on top of that a feminist, supported by women (self-identified as feminists or not), as president running their male lives and making decisions about their sacrosanct business practices privileges. (What type of feminism Clinton represented is not in discussion in this post.)

The male oligarchs  perceived that their absolute male power and privileges were being threatened by ‘feminists’. I remember reading a tweet from Michael Moore saying, under the assumption that Hillary’s victory was assured,

“guys, let’s admit it: 10 thousand years of male dominance over women is coming to an end” (I paraphrased.)

He was pleased about that.

How else do you explain the misogynistic coverage of Clinton in the media, even by those who ‘endorsed’ her? Look, no owner of big corporation in his right mind would have come out openly supporting Trump, a know amoral entity, during the elections. That explains, in part, how the WaPo, e.g.,, which ‘endorsed’ her,  spend 24/7 negative coverage of Clinton and the ’email’ ‘crimes’ up to November 9. Then they stopped talking about her ‘crimes’, one day to the other.

That’s also why only now we are finding out that the support for Trump was extensive, across party lines, from the extreme left supporting Putin to the extreme right also supporting him, and mostly by elitist men; but hidden from the public in plain view.

It was a magnificently globally crafted and implemented soft coup d’etate ON THE PEOPLE of the USA during and after the 2016 elections.

Hillary Clinton is right: Ultimately it was not about her, but about us, the people united against ‘strong men’ in power.

Women continue to be today the only revolutionary force capable of making significant changes to the system. Their struggle touches every aspect of our humanity: From cultural and gender issues, to labor and search for political power against the oligarchs. They just need to realize the awesome power they have in their hands.

The labor and ‘leftist’ movement, they are no more. The few zombie ‘Marxist leftists’ out there are beckoning you to follow them and leave the ‘identity politics, the politics of fighting the oppression of women and all people, behind.

Follow the pseudo-Marxist leftists at your own risk.

Me, I’m done with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andrew Levine -Did he just follow Trump into the GOP?

Sometimes it is amusing to watch how some people, in trying to come to grip with their mistakes but lacking the courage to admit to them, get all bent into a pretzel to prove they were actually right.

That seems to be the case with Andrew Levine, of Counter Punch online magazine, in his latest pro-Trump-apology propaganda article “Had Hillary Won: What Now?”. It starts as an apparent effort at admitting a mistake for attacking Hillary Clinton during the elections, but ends as a full-blown support for Trump and an invitation to join the GOP. Seriously!!

Twice in the article Andrew invites you to be thankful (yes, thankful) that Trump was, basically, imposed on the voters by the ‘oligarchy’, and all through it he tries to convince you that, under Trump, the GOP is not a fascist party, that the Democratic party is the fascist one. He actually makes the case for switching to the GOP as an alternative to the “corrupt” Democratic Party; maybe he has already switched, who knows. Then, he ends his article the way he intended to start it: He concludes that we should be grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president and Trump is:

Even so, there is some reason to be grateful that she did not. [win, i.e.]

All this tells me that there may be another explanation for Mr. Levin’s Trump-apology article apart from an act of remorse, of ‘guilty feelings’ for his unrelenting attacks on Clinton. It may be just another piece from the Putin troll farm (propaganda) coming to the rescue of Trump in time when the Muller investigation is casting an ominous light on him with the indictment of 13 Russians. I think Andrew’s article fulfills this second explanation, and I will discuss his statements proving this below.

For Andrew, as for the zombie-leftists (he finally admits that there is no ‘leftist movement’) it is only Putin that matters. So here he goes again telling you that, for the love of God, understand that if Trump is in love with Putin (because of the millions of dollars in business with him, not because Trump is pro-peace) you must come to love Trump also.

That is the mark of the Putin troll farm, their love for Putin. All pseudo-leftists show it in their defense of Trump. They may receive monetary compensation for it, or do it for free, just for the love of Putin. We’ll never know which applies to Andrew Levine.

Once, right after the elections, Mr. Levine came this close to admitting that his and his magazine constant attacks on Hillary Clinton during the elections may have contributed to the appointment of racist/misogynist/racketeering/fascist Trump to the presidency. He must have felt a pang of guilty feelings, that’s for sure, for no self-respecting Marxist in his/her right mind would have campaigned for Trump, directly or indirectly, no matter who was running on the democratic side. If Mr. Levine lacks the political education to see that Trump is a 100% corrupt, amoral, anti-everything that is even mildly humane, let alone anti Mr. Levine’s ‘beloved’ working class, then he should stop representing himself as a leftist. I don’t believe he is a ‘leftist’. If he is one, he is a traitor to the working class. Any one who is glad that Trump is the president is a traitor to the working class.

Troll farm propaganda #1: Don’t mourn for Hillary, celebrate Trump

Here is Andrew again, in the anniversary of Trump’s first year of giving in simony this nation to the white-male billionaires, telling you that there’s no need to feel bad about having your democratically elected candidate supplanted by an amoral gangster. (Are there moral gangsters? The Godfather had some morals: don’t sell drugs to children. But that’s a movie and I’m digressing.).

That’s why he wrote this article. It’s a psychological propaganda attack on you to get you to accept Trump despite the political debacle this nation is experiencing at his expense. The technique is by reminding you how ‘evil Hillary and the Democratic Party are’, by feeding you the same emotional arguments that worked so well in creating this public image of Hillary Clinton as a monster. Andrew rehashes all the usual crimes and depiction of Hillary as a “beast” used during the elections in the article. It’s the Putin weapon reloading and discharging.

The above explains why the article starts like this:

“Suppose the polls had been right; suppose that what practically everybody believed would happen actually did happen.”

Instead of Marxism 100, Mr. Levin resorts to tasseomancy to explain why Trump is better than Clinton for the nation.  Mr. Levine is reading the tea leaves for you, he knows for a fact that, had the candidate with the overwhelming, historical majority of votes be in the presidency now…

Then Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, would be president of the United States, but the Senate, probably, and the House of Representatives, certainly, would have remained under Republican control.

So, his line of thinking is ‘Don’t feel bad, even if we pseudo-leftist screwed up by attacking her instead of attacking Trump, she would have still lost Congress.’  Right; he knows that for sure because he is a professional tassologist, not a Marxist.

He can see in his tea leaves what a Clinton administration would have looked like also:

had Hillary won, we would now have pretty much what we had when Barack Obama was president…

Funny thing here is that Mr. Levin was absent during the Obama administration from the leftist movement, he was supporting him, but now he is casting blame for the demise of the leftist movement on Obama.

So, again, Andrew goes on rehashing all the usual attacks on Clinton, saying that she would have been ‘more of Obama’.

Troll farm propaganda #2: ‘OK. We were wrong but will never admit to it’.

This is the thing: You can’t justify the unjustifiable, even If you are Mr. Levin or any other pseudo-leftists. Justifying support for Trump is possible only if you are like Trump. And so Andrew finds himself having to grant, in order to attack her later, nonetheless, that something good must have come out from a Hillary Clinton presidency. If you followed Andrew’s, Counter Punch magazine, and all the other zombie-leftists online blogs attacks on Hillary, like I did, this next statement by him is bound to have your head spinning in a rage.

He says that, had Hillary be the president now, some good would have come from her:

…the likelihood that the United States would blunder into a nuclear Armageddon would now be significantly less. [with Hillary, i.e.]

Throughout the elections Andrew’s and the pseudo-leftists main attack point on Hillary was that she is a warmonger.  He and the pseudo-leftists invited you to not vote for Clinton because she is a “warmonger beast” intending, purposely and for her beastly pleasure (literally) to cause “a WWIII”; that, because of Trump’s love of Putin, he was the peace candidate. I called the attention in my blog to this propaganda, you can search it.  It’s all there, including Susan Sarandon’s mind blogging statement that “Trump is less dangerous than Hillary”.

Troll farm propaganda #3: “We are a lot better off with Trump”

Look, if you have children reading this post, please, send them to their room; don’t let them see Andrew’s obscene argument in defense of Trump.

 It grieves me to say anything good about Donald Trump, but, to his credit, he did force Republicans onto a less unreasonable track…

Do I really have to spell to you the meaning of that statement? I’m going to choose not to do it. You just focus on the words “credit” and Republicans “in a less unreasonable track”. You will get there on your own.

What could possibly make a professional political ‘leftist’ thinker utter such an egregiously incorrect and offensive claim? Not even Republicans themselves dare to soil themselves by claiming that Trump has made them more reasonable. What could be so important to make Mr. Levine crap his reputation as an ‘intellectual leftists’ with such a sorry comment?

Answer: Putin, of course.

Trump has turned the GOP into the peace party, he says:

 …not in general, but towards Russia, a country with a nuclear arsenal so formidable that only maniacs would want to mess with it unnecessarily.

Thank God for the GOP for they are the peace party that will prevent a nuclear war with Russia because they have Trump’s man-crush on Putin to protect us.

Troll farm propaganda #4: “The GOP is not a fascist party.” Join them.

You can bring the kids back now. This will help them recognize propaganda in the future.

Andrew tells us that the Republican party is not a fascist party anymore, the implication being that they are not as dangerous, and that, when compared to the “corrupt” DNC, which he does ad nauseam,  well, they may be a better alternative for your interests as a (white) working class/middle class man.

And so, Reagan-style friendly fascism has largely disappeared from the Republican fold.”

Wow. And to think that I thought they were more fascist today under Trump. Thank you, Andrew for showing me how wrong I’ve been in insulting that progressing party.

Mr. Levine gives you a history class about the GOP, how that party under Reagan was a full-fledged fascist party, but not anymore under comrade Trump.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is the devil incarnate.

Troll farm propaganda #5: Save the white working men from the evil party, the Democratic party, i.e.

Mr. Levin faithfully brandishes GOP’s and Trump’s racist arguments in favor of white men with pseudo-leftist language.

He describes the political crimes, subterfuges of the Democratic Party, all with ‘fascist’ roots. One of the biggest crimes of Hillary and the democratic party is their defense of people of color. As the GOP and Trump said, Andrew says that the dems “abandoned” the white working class, meaning the deplorables who supported Trump. That alone is enough to run out of the dem party into the GOP. You have to understand, the GOP is not fascist any more. They will stand for your rights as people of color, women, above all as workers. Do you really believe that the GOP and Trump cares about people of color, other than white color? Do you?!

This reminds me when, during the primaries, Levin et al pseudo-leftists advocated at Counter Punch for progressives to go to Trump’s rallies and pick up  a physical fight with his supporters, the same white working class he is standing for here. That’s dishonesty and manipulation of emotions, then and now.

Conclusion: Women are the hope for the future, but not really.

Mr. Levine may pretend to cover up his pro-Trump-GOP tracks by using some name calling on Trump, but the fact remains that he has created a masterful piece of propaganda, one that actually tells you that both the GOP and Trump are good for you.

The artful part of it is in the claiming that having Trump will automatically produce a ‘leftist movement’ against him. The problem is this: Mr. Levin clearly is pro-Trump, so every action by anyone against Trump is seen by Andrew as an attack on Putin and on his white supporters. And so him and the pseudo-leftists have consistently attacked the women’s resistance on account of them being anti-Trump. Let alone the fact that, as Andrew himself just admitted in the article, there is no leftist movement in the USA. That’s why they are a zombie-leftists: they are dead and and still roaming around the living trying to suck the blood out of us from their fancy leftists’ websites traps.

He knows there is no leftist movement alive to guide Levine’s beloved working class against the billionaires takeover of our nation. He knows it. So why  did he tell you during the elections that better vote for Trump than for “crooked Hillary” because Trump would ‘spark’ the revolution? He was doing Putin’s work to elect Trump. That’s why.

The zombie-leftists were absent during the Obama administration, this Andrew admits. But they were dead long before Obama, among other reasons because the workers can see that the professional left has left them behind long ago.

Today, Andrew attacks women, the only ones who have raised to the challenge against all that Trump represents. True, they are disorganized, but they are there, waiting for the right  bearers of ‘socialist’ ideology to help them focus their energy. Don’t expect that from Andrew or any other of the zombie-leftists.

At first, when the women organized the first Women’s March, the zombie-leftist, including him, ignored them, then started to attack them for being ‘women-centered’. Today it is obvious that it is the women the one at the forefront against this misadministration, and Andrew had to admit it:

It started with the Women’s March, immediately after Inauguration Day, and has been growing ever since; with women – black, brown, and white – leading the surge.

But he can’t control his misogyny. At the beginning of the article he called the women’s resistance a “sparking anodyne “resistance,”. It had to be “anodyne” because women issues are not important enough, not to the zombie-leftists. The leftists have always been misogynists, not all, but as a movement. The oppression of women is not important, girls. Don’t bother your male leftists with your problems.

Look, no one is saying that the democratic party is the socialist party or that it is controlled by the billionaire CEOs. But to say that the GOP is “less fascist” than the dems and that Trump is an opportunity for peace, simply shows the dishonesty of a man that claims to stand for the working class but is a fascist at heart.

The pseudo-leftists should have join the dems and force a coalition of sorts with the owners of the party, and take from there. No one can expect any ‘revolution’ in these political conditions. There is no space for a revolution since 1945. But the intellectual leftists have capitulated and sold their soul to Trump.

So women are a distraction, there’s no leftist movement; what are we to do now?

Follow  Andrew Levine into the Trump party, for the love of Putin!

On Hillary Clinton’s hair DNA sequence as the barometer of freedom of speech

Hillary Clinton has become everything to us.

I wholeheartedly supported her during the elections, but I’m nobody’s “hardcore follower”. Every leader of every era has had hardcore followers, the type that accept them no matter what. I meant that opening line with another meaning.

This is not about her per se, though; it’s about that tenuous concept of ‘freedom of speech’. Is about how a man’s business ‘practice’, figuring out DNA sequence to create pharmaceutical products, became not only his downfall, but also the test for the limits of freedom of speech.

And yet! Hillary Clinton has actually become ‘everything to us’. Every time she shows her face in public there’s mass convulsion. She is the perennial she-devil that half the nation needed to block from access to the most powerful political seat in the world because they were sure she was intent on seeking the presidency to, in her evil way of thinking, destroy the world (for fun, mind you) by causing the third World War. That’s worse than being a ‘bitch’. That’s a witch.

Martin Shkreli felt compelled out of his arduous business of making life-saving drugs by her merely showing her face in public…to sell some books.

Possible humane background for Martin Shkreli need for Clinton’s DNA sequencing

Since distant times, the witches’ own hair have been used by heroes to paralyze them. Heroes of  very far away times, well, of mythology, used to cross the planet trying to pull a lock of hair from a witch’s head to make a potion with which to kill her, or to cut her head off, which always proved easier to do. Medusa comes to mind. Medusa, a man-eater. That’s the danger these witches pose to ‘mankind’.

Fast forward to the most modern and advanced millennium in (organized) human history: the 21 first’s.

Medusa, er, Clinton is the embodiment of that mythological man-eater. And Martin Shkreli is the (anti) hero in search of Clinton’s head. Except that he doesn’t carry a sword but a sack of money to pay, as he advertised on FB, any fool who dares grab her by the (head) hair and bring him the evidence of success. He is more like SALOME in that respect, isn’t he?

He can afford to pay $5 grands per hair strand because he is in the pharma business of making people pay with their blood for one vial of life-saving medication. He is a blood-sucker, i.e., a (male) vampire going after a witch. That’s rich, isn’t? He wanted to create a modern potion with her hair, figuring her DNA sequence to make the ‘antidote’ to kill her. Literally.

Well, the case is that he is now, supposedly, in a Maximum security prison for “solicitation to assault in exchange for money that is not protected by the First Amendment,” the judge said. To which Shkreli’s lawyer responded:

“Indeed, in the current political climate, dissent has unfortunately often taken the form of political satire, hyperbole, parody or sarcasm,” Brafman wrote. “There is a difference, however, between comments that are intended to threaten or harass and comments — albeit offensive ones — that are intended as political satire or strained humor.”

This is where my opinion on the issue starts.

The discussion of the political issue of Freedom of speech has become as mindbogglingly ridiculous as those laws passed mostly in the western states of the US prohibiting the collection of rain water, even the rain falling on a citizen’s house roof.

In this latest case of ridiculously mind boggling use of freedom of speech it is MONEY the trigger for the dispute. Had Shkreli just asked for a few strands of Mrs. Clinton’s hair, he would still be a free vampire, um, man, but his crime was in offering monetary payment, in engaging in a business transaction, the type that has made him a billionaire, to wit, figuring out “DNA sequence” of things that would make him richer beyond our imagination. He claims now that it was all just in jest.

He got himself a direct ‘go to jail’ for offering payment, not for the many instances of abuse of freedom of speech in which he has engaged, mostly against women.

His lawyer has a point when he says that “in the current political climate, dissent has unfortunately often taken the form of political satire, hyperbole, parody or sarcasm”. I propose that this satirizing of dissent is a sign of the times, a sign of the political powerlessness of the citizens of this nation.

There has been so many instances of clear abuse of freedom of speech in the past years sanctioned by the SCOTUS and by politicians that We The People are left only with “satire” to fight it off. A corporation is a person. Mind boggling, isn’t it?

Up to the last 20 years of the last century most of us  had a good idea of what abuse of freedom of speech meant, we could hear it and read it when expressed. After 9/11 that clarity has become a fog. But more than anything it is globalism which has muddled our minds with its insistence in conflating freedom of speech and freedom of doing business.

Doing business requires advertising the products created through advertisement, and the advertisement industry has  desensitized the public to their playful use of freedom of speech to sell the business’ ware with ads portraying ‘bad’ as cool. Shkreli himself prided, not anymore, on being that bad boy of social media.

We live in a world that is politically and economically disturbed. Billionaires feel that they are exempt from moral rules, just as the feudal lords of the 1800s saw themselves. Bad is good, good is bad. War is good, peace is a sign of weakness, according to the elite’s bible. And freedom of speech will continue to be mediated by how much freedom we need to take from corporations to be able  to live in a moral social agreement.

The limits of freedom of speech will be tested by how far the likes of billionaires like Shkreli can push immorality,  not by ‘DNA testing’.

That is farther down the line.

 

 

 

Amy Goodman clears WaPo and MSM reputation as purveyors of fake news

[Attention, grammar police: you need a warrant to enter this post.]

This article at Democracy Now illustrates how the media is covering all the bases, going everywhere to clear its reputation as purveyor of fake news after the beating it got from the public for demonstrating during this presidential election cycle that they are nothing but publishers of propaganda. Amy Goodman is working with them to save the credibility of the corrupt media by attacking Trump for ‘attacking’ the “lying media”.

Amy Goodman,  who has suffered in her own skin the media barons and the government punishing ‘alternative’ journalists, seems to have been coerced into bending over to defend the Bezos and Murdoch and Slim’s barons of the media.

Instead of using the opportunity to denounce the media, she joins in the effort to cleans their corrupted souls. You don’t have to agree with Trump, just use his own propaganda to show the truth about the media. But that’s asking too much from the zombie left.

Amy Goodman interviews Robert Reich, who is thoroughly offended by Trump’s cojones to call the WaPo and the media purveyors of propaganda. She tells us who Reich is:

“Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. Reich, who now teaches at University of California, Berkeley, has emerged as one of Donald Trump’s most vocal critics. He recently wrote a piece headlined “Trump’s Seven Techniques to Control the Media.”

I read the article happily anticipating Amy engaging in a powerful indictment of the ‘presstitute’ media, but not such luck. Au contraire, I got another heartburn by reading how the pseudo-leftist media is a tool of the big media conglomerate. Prove me wrong.

I’m giving you this quote from the article, and warn you not to look for Amy correcting this guy’ statements, for you won’t find any corrections:

that is designed to undermine the credibility, in the public’s mind, of anything that The Washington Post might publish. It is an absurd allegation. There is no reason to believe that the Post‘s reporting turns upon Jeff Bezos’s concern about Amazon and any antitrust issues. But, you see, by creating this kind of conspiracy theory or this kind of paranoid notion about the press and planting it in the public’s mind, the public, or at least a portion of the public, is led to think that anything that The Washington Post, or another paper whose credibility the president-elect tries to undermine, says is [not] justified or is [not] true. And again, that is terribly dangerous in a democracy.

How dare ANYONE undermine the credibility of our media? Reich went to Amy to help him protect the crashing credibility of our media conglomerate.

How dare ANYONE question the credibility of our media, the same one that lied to the public on behalf of Bush and Cheney to “plant in the public’s mind” the idea that we had to invade Iraq because of the WMD?

And finally, how dare ANYONE question the credibility of the media that gave us Trump by engaging in the practice of character assassination against Hillary Clinton and the 24/7 coverage of the fictitious emails scandal that caused a significant part of the public who trust the WaPo and the NYT to not vote for her, costing her the presidency?

As I commented in my previous posts, that coverage of the emails was tantamount to a premature coup d’etat. They were getting the bed ready to have Hillary Clinton impeached for the emails had she won the elections. But the FBI jumped the gun, and they got her before she set foot on the White House.

But don’t expect Amy Goodman to mention any of this. She agrees with Reich that Trump is ‘vilifying’ poor Bezos and the media.

There is no discussion in the article  about the idea that the owners of our media conglomerate, elitist billionaires themselves, have good reasons to lie to the public, mainly to protect their class interests  from the ‘deplorable masses’, the ‘angry voters’ who are threatening to put their heads in a pitchfork.

There is no discussion either of how Trump is playing a game for the deplorables, pretending to hate the media, just as he pretended to hate the globalists but is filling his cabinet with the biggest and most corrupt of them. Trump may be lying, but he is not lying about the media as propagandists; he knows them because he uses them for propaganda.

Those who know the media shouldn’t be attacking him for ‘attacking’ the media. Use the opportunity to unmask the media, not to protect its corrupted soul.

Maybe my post about the theatricals between Trump and the NYT pretending to be at war can help you read between the lines when he ‘attacks’ the ‘lying media’.

MSM (Fake News) and Trump: The Truth About Their Secret Meetings

Jeff Bezos (WaPo) Covering Up for their partners in the 2016 election coup

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post; nothing of political weight can be printed without his approval. That’s a fact, and inability to recognize it or willingness to ignore it is the result of the public having been trained to not question the intentions behind the information the owners of the media conglomerate feed them daily.

Under the guise of ‘journalism’, The WaPo published today Sari Horwitz’ article The attorney general could have ordered FBI Director James Comey not to send his bombshell letter on Clinton emails. Here’s why she didn’t. It’s about covering up what amounts to a premature coup d’etat, not only against Hillary Clinton, but against the people of this nation, by the FBI, the Department of Justice and those who are yet to be uncovered.

It bears mentioning that Horwitz, a WaPo award-winning journalist, was found guilty by the WaPo of plagiarism in 2011.

plagiarims

Her article today is nothing but opinion passing as information. Its goal is to exonerate FBI Director James Comey in the public’s eyes for a behavior that was, without a doubt, politically motivated. The public knows it was, Bezos and Murdoch and Carlos Slim know it too; they often stated, after him releasing the now infamous emails letter to Congress, that Comey “must have known the repercussions of his actions”.

That’s why Comey is protected by a wall of media articles exonerating and casting him as a ‘well intentioned’ ‘worker’. If it is found that he acted out to influence the outcome of the elections, it would implicate many more people in what amounts, again, to a premature coup d’etat. For, remember, he is not just any ‘worker’, he is the director of the FBI. And we all know the first image the word FBI conjures in our minds is the opposite of political honesty.

One example of stealthy opinion passing as fact to exculpate Comey and the Justice Department:

But Comey and Lynch repeatedly underestimated how much their actions would reverberate in a closely contested presidential race.

How did Horwitz arrive at the conclusion that these two highly intelligent politicized bureaucrats “underestimated” their actions, and not that their actions were politically motivated? It seems an innocuous assertion from her part, and many readers would not take notice of the opinion being fed as fact. That’s the problem: it is not an innocuous assertion. It was written to manipulate public opinion about the players’ intentions in this   must horrific case of collusion between the media owners spewing their propaganda and the cover up of the political crime.

Horwitz said the following as if agreeing with Comey, never questioning whether the director’s present or past behaviors  confirm or put in doubt his self-perception

Into that vacuum stepped Comey, an FBI director who prides himself on having a finely tuned moral compass that allows him to rise above politics.

Comey’s sense of obligation to Congress was the key factor driving his decision.

When journalists and media editors want to cast blame on any one, politician or not, whether deserved or not, they don’t go pussy footing around it: They charge the person with the crime and repeat their verdict enough times as to making it become  a fact. And when they want to exculpate some one, they tend to succeed. This is the verdict in favor of the Director of the FBI:

Comey’s sense of obligation to Congress was the key factor driving his decision.

There you have it. It is a an opinion; he acted out of ‘duty’. Keep moving folks, there’s nothing else to see here.

When Comey did  his disreputable deed a week before the elections, The WaPo was not the only one to come to Comey’s defense. There was, and continues to be, consensus and agreement by the owners of the media in casting Comey as a good FBI worker caught in the jaws of party politics, and in particular, in Hillary’s ‘web of deceit’, which is how they characterized her involvement in the scandal. You can google Comey and this is what you get:

Comey a Good Man, But He Made a Serious Mistake

Comey’s unintended consequences…

Of course, Hillary Clinton was cast throughout the campaign as dishonest and corrupt by choice. When it came to cast the blame on the outcome of the elections, Comey was a victim, and Clinton lost because, well, she had to.

For one, why are Democrats making Comey the scapegoat when their own presidential candidate was disliked by 56 percent of the population? WaPo’s Cilliza

Comey is “the scapegoat”, and the public shouldn’t complain about manipulations of their democratic process by the media or by a cabal of politicians acting behind the curtains. The message there is simple: We the media told you that Clinton is disliked even more than Trump; that’s a fact and shut up.

Of course, Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million votes more than Trump. The public didn’t want Trump, but the message, even after the facts, the MYTH is that the public didn’t like her and Trump is the people’s choice.

It is the curse of mass of humanity that it can be manipulated at will by a handful of powerful men.

I don’t see how this is going to change any time soon.

For the moment, Comey is the good guy and “scapegoat”.  Hillary is the evil doer. Trump is El Duce.

Enjoy your bizarro life.